Is The Leica SL Doomed?

Since writing Leica SL: Titan or Titanic, I hadn’t thought much more about this new series of cameras, until now. It isn’t because I think the SL is irrelevant, only because there hasn’t been much by way of SL developments. In fact, the Leica SL is hugely relevant, because it represents a very significant investment for Leica. As many of you will know, I have a huge soft spot for the brand, despite selling my Monochrom. I am eager to see what Leica has up its sleeve, not least because I still have several film bodies and some wonderful Leica M lenses. I shot for years in Afghanistan using Leica M bodies (Leica M6, MP) and I’m just itching for them to release a really successful new system camera that will keep them going well into the future. Unfortunately, having once again thought over the Leica SL system as a commercial proposition, I’m struggling to see how it won’t fail. There’s just so much stacked against it and not nearly enough ‘good stuff’ happening. So let’s take a look.

The Titanic: a ship made famous by Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet having it off in the back of a car in the hold. If Titanic had been made by Leica, the hull would have been milled from a single block of metal and probably wouldn’t have sunk. Some lunatic would have stuck black tape over the Leica dot. Another would be raising the issue of ‘the black paint wearing slightly differently to that of Britannic and Olympic’ on poster boards around Belfast.

So what has happened since I write the first article?

Not a huge amount, but that in itself is fairly significant. The Leica APO-VARIO-ELMARIT-SL 90-280mm f2.8-4 is now available and has been tested by reviewers and owners alike. At £4,930 (from Leica Mayfair, UK) you’d expect it to be good and it is. It is extremely good, going by what I’ve have read, but the price is eye watering for a non-medium format lens. It is also exceedingly expensive for a long lens that is not mated to a system with obvious professional utility (such as for wildlife or sports). Alongside this tele-zoom is the fairly large and heavy LEICA VARIO-ELMARIT-SL 24–90 mm f2.8–4 ASPH (£3,790 from Leica Mayfair), which has been available since the release of the Leica SL. It too is wonderful, but even Leica SL fans acknowledge that it’s a large and heavy hunk of metal and glass. We are now also being told that the Summilux-SL 50mm f1.4 ASPH lens will be released in early 2017. When you consider that I wroteLeica SL: Titan or Titanic in October 2015, that is quite a wait for the first prime lens and only the third lens in the line up. It mightn’t have been prohibitively long back in 1990 when everyone was shooting film and not much changed, but in today’s digital marketplace, a lot changes (more on this later).

The next issue is to expand upon the size and weight issues I talked about in my earlier article. It is abundantly clear that the Leica SL is firmly in DSLR territory with regard to bulk and mass. A SL body, with the two zooms weighs in at approximately 3850g, which is about 650g more than a Canon 5D IV with EF 24-70 f2.8 L II and Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L II lenses. Comparison with Nikon would be broadly comparable, depending on the body and specific lenses chosen. If any of you were hoping that native primes might be a little smaller, you may be disappointed. As the below leicarumors.com graphic shows, there is a vast size difference between the Leica SL with forthcoming Summilux-SL 50mm f/1.4 ASPH and a Leica M9/240 and 50mm Summilux-M f/1.4 ASPH.

The difference between the two Summilux lenses is positively gargantuan and I am left scratching my head a little. I am wondering what Leica is up to. As stated before, this is not a sports camera (it lacks the sophisticated AF tracking and grip, not to mention the total absence of a viable system for such applications). It is also not a high resolution monster. So why are even the primes so utterly enormous? As others have suggested, I can only assume that it is to make the lenses ‘the best possibly available’. However, this just doesn’t make sense with 24MP at the SL’s disposal. I also don’t recall too many complaints about the Leica Summilux-M ASPH being unsatisfactory on the Leica M240, or Leica M246. Leica seems to be crippling the utility of the Leica SL through massive ‘best possible’ optics, while solving a problem that doesn’t exist. Fully appreciating the lens size vs. resolution issue is a little more complex and involves the Leica S system (more on this later). At this point I can only say that I hope the 50mm Summilux-SL does not indicate how large the rest of the primes will be….

So why is the Summilux-SL 50mm f/1.4 ASPH the first SL Prime?

The 50mm Summilux makes a lot of sense with the M system, because that system is often used for street photography and reportage, where 50mm has a cultish following. However, the SL is much more likely to be used for general photography, travel, landscapes, portraits etc, where I expect 50mm is not nearly as popular. I suspect that in this context the 50mm Summilux is actually one of the least desirable. Perhaps Leica believed other focal lengths would be served by second hand R lenses?

Many SL early adopters seem to be existing M lens owners and I venture that a great many of them already own a cracking 50mm lens that already performs very well on the 24MP SL. However, very few will own a fast portrait lens, with 75mm Summilux-M owners being very much in the minority. After the whizz bang portrait lens, the 50mm Summilux-SL could then have been introduced at a later date when there is a much higher resolution sensor in a future SL generation. I am also left wondering why Leica did not release a trio of Summicrons first, or perhaps a 35mm Summicron-SL f2 and 85mm Summilux-SL f1.4. Establishing a base of Summicrons is the approach they took with the slow-selling Leica T and it made sense. However, it could also indicate why they chose a different approach with the SL. I’d argue that the problem with the Leica T had nothing to do with the lenses and everything to do with the woefully misguided T concept, however.

What is the Future of the Leica SL?

There still isn’t any clarity at all on which new SL lenses will be released and when. It’s a case of almost total darkness, so new buyers still have no clue what they are really buying into (with a very high price of admission, let’s not forget). This surely makes it very difficult indeed to attract new buyers after the initial flurry of Leica M and R system owners. And where on earth is the Leica R to SL adaptor 12 months later?

Caught Between A Rock And The Leica S

It still looks like the SL is being constrained by the 37.5MP sensor on the existing Leica S series. Leica’s inability to move that body beyond 37.5MP from the S006 to S007 has sucked a lot of the juice out of the SL. Many Leica M owners would say that they don’t want more than 24MP and this is easy to understand when one considers the compactness of the system and its widespread application. The same cannot be said of the SL, which judging by the size of the lenses currently known about, really needs 36+ MP to make any sense at all in todays market. CMOSIS, which is the company that makes the sensor in the Leica M and Leica T (I am not sure about the SL), has announced the imminent release of a 48MP full-frame sensor, which is more like it, considering the flower pot sized SL lenses. The problem is they won’t be able to put that sensor into the SL until the S has one of considerably higher resolution. This may all take a long time to grind into place, after which the market will be another 2 years downrange. It will be a fairly merciless two years I suspect.

The Camera Market & Innovation

The market has already changed significantly since my original article. As feared, it is not in the SL’s favour. Not only do we have the imminent announcement of the third generation of Sony A7 cameras, but we very possibly have a pro-spec A9 around the corner that will sit a level above the current A7 series. This camera may well provide the sports grade AF in a mirrorless package with access to a much wider range of native optics. OK, OK, so the Sony is not really direct competition for the Leica SL. The Hasselblad X1D-50C is though. Not only does it have double the resolution in a larger sensor, it is the same approximate size and has some vastly smaller (albeit slower) primes in the line up. It may prove to be an amazing travel set up for top notch image quality of a level the SL doesn’t begin to approach. The body is a bit more expensive (not that much really), but the lenses are likely to work out cheaper when you factor in a working line up. Then we have the Fujifilm GFX 50s which has an almost (or actually) identical sensor and which is likely to see its lens line up fleshed out more quickly than the Leica SL. It is likely to be the same price for the body and appreciably less for the lenses. The other issue is that with both the Hasselblad and the Fujifilm, we have greater visibility of what is coming further down the line. That makes all the difference when you’re buying in. We know what those systems are about, but the Leica SL still seems far less resolved:

If you want to shoot sports, seriously, get a top DSLR. Such people either already own one, or will buy Canon or Nikon. They also don’t care about Leica, or fancy names and would never buy a Leica for shooting sports anyway. Leica doesn’t have and will never have the lenses, even if the SL was up to it (which it isn’t). OK, so serious sports photography is out.

If you want the ultimate in image quality for scenics, buy a medium format camera. You have the choice of two systems (Hassy & Fuji), both of which are comparable in size, weight and cost to the Leica SL system. If you want phenomenal image quality in the smallest lightest package, you certainly won’t be buying the Leica SL. The Sony A7R II sounds much more like it. After all, there are plenty of amazing wide angle lenses for Sony FE now.

If you want the ultimate all rounder with bags of flexibility, buy a DSLR. If you have Leica money and you want a Leica and the ultimate all rounder, buy a Leica M system and a DSLR system. The Leica SL would be knocking on the door of ‘top notch all rounder’ were it not for the extremely thin line up of massive lenses. You can buy much more compact options for any of the main DSLR systems, simply because they all have compact AF prime lenses that the Leica doesn’t. Canikon also have tilt and shift lenses, long primes and the list goes on.

If you want a superb light-weight travel rig and like the Leica vibe, buy a Leica M system. Oh, you already own one? Well then maybe consider a Leica SL to compliment it. It will be great for shooting with long lenses like the Leica APO-VARIO-ELMARIT-SL 90-280mm f2.8-4. If you’re into portraits, its a shame, because Leica doesn’t have an 85mm, 90mm, or 100mm SL portrait lens anywhere on the visible horizon. If you don’t already own one, you may have to buy a Summilux 75mm f1.4 – crazy I know – or crazier still, how about a Leica *R* 85mm f1.4? Unless I have missed something, these are your options, unless you want to mess around with third party lenses and cheap Chinese ebay adaptors with your £6,000 camera. As stated earlier, if you do want to use Leica R lenses you will still need both Leica R to M and M to L adaptors, costing a total of £590! perplexingly, the M to TL adaptor is not yet available after 12 months of ‘Leica SL’ and I struggle to find words to describe how absurd this is. I can only assume that Leica has a massive backlog of M to T adaptors they’ve been unable to sell due to poor sales of the Leica T. The argument that this double adaptor set up is excusable, because many SL owners already own R to M adaptors, is nonsense.

So the problem remains unchanged: what problems, or needs or wants does it satisfy that existing cameras don’t or can’t? I’m struggling to think of any beyond a bridging camera for existing Leica M and R users. The problem is where the bridge really leads and that remains unclear.

A Missed Opportunity?

I hope that Leica has for more insight into the marketplace and better analysis than I do. I therefore hope that they have a card up their sleeve that will leave me nodding respectfully, while chewing mouthfuls of hat and with humble pie lined up for dessert. However, if they do, they need to play it soon. The SL may still be around (and of course it would be), but this doesn’t mean it won’t end up on the bottom, or simply without paying customers.

It is such a missed opportunity. There still isn’t a FF interchangeable camera with a solid range of stunningly good truly compact lenses with impeccable build, excellent manual focus implementation and with blazing fast AF. [We know they can do it because all of these attributes are already present across the Leica range]. This is the camera the Leica SL should have been and could have been, if Leica had not feared cannibalising the Leica M and pressuring the Leica S. Unfortunately, my understanding is that they have protected a struggling S series and a M system that is approaching a bit of a wall, while creating something that is not really viable in its own right. The response to the Leica Q said it all: ‘we LOVE the camera and everything about it. We’d sell our grannies to buy a Q with interchangeable lenses…’ But Leica didn’t deliver. However, is everything as it seems? I do have to wonder:

Is Leica Keeping A Secret?

I have had a thought that would make the most sense out of the information we have thus far and here are the key elements:

The SL is a bridging camera, but not in the ‘Leica R sense’. It may be a bridging camera of greatest relevance to the M system, ahead of a ‘merger’. From what I am seeing of the rumored Leica M10, the camera is a little thinner and sports a 24MP sensor. I have a gut feeling that the M10 is going to be relatively pared down and simple. After all, M customers loved the M262, which is a bit simpler and lighter than the M240. Smaller, lighter and possibly cheaper are what I’m expecting, along with little to no jumps in capability aside from a somewhat improved sensor, with better dynamic range and high ISO perhaps.

Leica has not released any completely new M lens designs lately, aside from slightly tweaked previous generation designs to make them play better on the SL. The 28mm f5.6 Summaron is an old design with modern manufacture and one assumes this saved some R&D costs, with manufacturing/tooling costs presumably being recovered through the high price. Many of these lenses were amazing on the M already, so why make them better for the SL? Well, if you are a SL owner who already owns these M lenses, you now have to sell your older lenses and buy the updated models that are better on the SL at wide apertures.

This all sounds like the M and SL lines are going to merge in some way to me. Fujifilm runs two main body philosophies on their X line. The X-Pro series has an optical finder with a rangefinder type design and the X-T series using an EVF and a more DSLR design. So, here’s how I see it working out for the M and SL line:

Leica minimises investment in the Leica M system, while keeping the system moving along nicely. I reckon they can afford to have modest improvements to the innards and some tweaks on the M10 and M11, so that gives them another 4-6 years before serious further thought is required. Resolution can’t take a leap easily anyway, because the mechanical rangefinder system is already taxed enough focusing fast lenses at 24MP.

Further existing M lens designs are tweaked to perform a bit better on the SL, so there is now a pool of lenses that work very nicely without the same cost as designing new AF lenses from the ground up.

Leica slowly rolls out SL designs that are truly amazing in performance (and AF) along the way.

Leica sits on the recently updated T series body at least until the below point happens, because this update was very cost effective. Making cameras a different colour tends to be. They work hard behind the scenes on a major update that will fully realise the potential of the T’s APS-C capability.

2-4 years from now, Leica announces a Leica SL with top notch digital rangefinder that makes the M lenses feel truly at home (M to SL adaptor required). It will of course give all the modern benefits when used with new optics. By this time, the resolution can be increased substantially (30-40MP) because the S 00? is well over 50MP.

The T is overhauled to provide a much more useful, less stylised APS-C body with roughly 24MP. It will be much smaller than the SL and utilise an internal viewfinder. It can use the small and wonderful T lenses or the larger ‘faster and more perfect’ SL lenses, so there is the option to shoot a very compact mirrorless interchangeable lens Leica rig if you wish.

Leica continues to push the M in the direction of a simple, frills free camera with optical viewfinder and mechanical rangefinder. They will make it as small and simple as they can and keep the price as reasonable as they can. It’s for people who are absolutely committed to and love the M form factor and philosophy. The SL will be for those who want to keep FF, but with more technology (including video etc), more resolution and a larger more traditional chassis. The T will be for those who favour compactness and AF, or those who are looking for a cheaper entry into the ‘universal SL system’.

The M would continue as long as there is demand. Existing users can continue to use their lenses just fine and don’t need to care about upgrading to the ones better on the SL. New bodies will keep shrinking and feeling more like the film Ms of old.

The Q remains the fixed lens version of all of the above!

But who knows? At least to me, the above makes sense and would appeal to me. Would it appeal to you? Does it even sound viable or sensible? I know it sounds rather like the Sony E Mount solution in some respects, but certainly not in actuality. Its more nuanced and much more interesting. It would also convey a sense of being around for another 20 years, which is something Leica lacks in the SL or T lines at the moment. It is also rather harmonious and would draw all the brands efforts together. I like it and hope it happens! If Leica can limp along with the M system carrying all the weight for a few more years, then maybe….

If it does, I’d like Santa 2020 to bring me the new *Leica T with a range of little Summicron lenses 🙂

*This assumes it is a real camera for serious use and not a fashion accessory that puts style before substance.

Sign up for TPF’s Newsletter!

Comments

I had the chance to handel the new SL breifly at photokina and i was shocked. I was at the hasselblad booth before and had the pleasure to hold the x1d and comparing these two cameras, i see no reason for the sl to be so big and heavy.
May the lenses be as great as they are, the system is to bulky.
I guess fuji made the right approach having aps-c for the general audience and medium format for the rich enthusiast and professionals.

I imagine their customer base in the m department is stagnant and i can see the urge to gather more customers in a decreasing market, but the sl does not seem to be the answer.

Comparing this to the automotive market, leica is another company with a suv, but their suv weighs more than the competition, is higher prized and performs worse…

Hi Kai, I think Fuji skipping full-frame and going for medium format is really interesting. I’m going to write a short piece about that I think, because I think there are some deductions that naturally fall out of it!

I don’t know who is behind the development of the T and the SL, but I fear they’re getting it horribly wrong. Should Leica be taking ‘harmonisation’ in the direct I guess at in this article, all may be well. But are they?

And as for the X1D and SL, the X1D is 50g or so lighter and with the standard prime on it, it would feel dramatically lighter than the SL and 50mm Summilux-SL I’d imagine.

You make many very good points – this one being the most succinct and resonating: “I struggle to find words to describe how absurd this is”. That is my point of view exactly. There are so many things going wrong with Leica that I wonder about who steers their policy.

As you mention the biggest and most obvious problem is their S series camera. Yes, it has some of the best lenses in the world, but they were at that level years ago. So why has their sensor development not improved to get the most out of them? Leica really does seem to be afraid to update it and allow the SL to have its own much larger sensor. My feeling is that they would have been better to focus on upgrading and improving the S first to a 60 mp sensor, at least, and making it reliable. Then they could have introduced the SL at 50MP, plus more prime lenses, plus a working adapter for M lenses. That may have made an impression on the market and MAY have justified the price and the ridiculous size of their primes.

Leica, though have been distracted by too many dead end projects, which were always over-priced and under-specced compared to their very strong competitors – The Leica X, T and Vario spring to mind.

As you say, their one great success in recent years was the Q. Hailed with universal acclaim, and yet that is the one model that they have singularly failed to capitalise on. No interchangeable lens version, not even a 40/2 or a 75/2 version! Madness!

Their M camera is great, but it needs to be made faster, more reliable, more robust and smaller, with an even bigger (Zeiss Ikon) and more accurate viewfinder. It seems they can keep the M line simple or they can refine it with some useful additions – perhaps split the line – I dream of a Fuji X-Pro equivalent in FF, with manual and AF lenses, 36 mp would do.

No doubt in the end though, Leica will just carry on and put their prices up, since that’s what they are consistently good at.

Hmm, one should probably consider the audience at which the camera is targeted. Leica touts it as a professional camera (weather sealing, two card slots …). Really? The newspapers in my home country (Germany) suffer from decreasing print runs, and are consequently downsizing their staff. I don’t think that they’ll spend 20,000 € per kit for their remaining photo journalists – they’ll probably use 5D3s. The sports photographers in their staff need fast AF and fast, long lenses, and are consequently best served by using Canon or Nikon, too. Could you imagine a photo journalist covering the Syrian war with that silly 1.4/50 mm behemoth? He’ll probably rather use his smartphone whenever possible, just to keep a flat profile. Those guys who do product or fashion shoots will probably use medium format.

Now, the marketing department at Leica knows all this, since they are far from stupid. The actual target audience is the well-heeled “photo enthusiast”, and there is much more money in that market compared to that related to “professional” photography. Sure, the angular design is not that ergonomic, but doesn’t it look slick? Likewise, the aluminum monoblock of the “T”. That’s industrial design! These are objects of desire, not the boring (but tremendously more functional) stuff that the Japanese companies produce. Only the bottom line of Leica AG will tell if the SL is a hit or a miss.

Disclaimer: I happily shoot a boring Japanese DSLR and the SL is not for me, but as a fellow German I wish Leica AG all the best.

“Only the bottom line of Leica AG will tell if the SL is a hit or a miss”. Absolutely! With this camera, I note a fairly lukewarm response from even the Leica fan base, so wonder how healthy the SL’s bottom line can be. Maybe there are sales that just aren’t visible in terms of online banter, passionate user reviews or group enthusiasm. Certainly, Leica’s market is rather different from the mainstream, but is it different enough to be impossible to gauge? I don’t know the answer to that question of course. I hope Leica is selling them by the boat load (sorry, I could not resist another maritime reference) because this gives a much higher likelihood of them coming up with something that really does replace the M in spiritual terms… something that scratches an itch with real precision.

I’ve used the SL w the 24-90 and the M 35 lux for 6 months now for all sorts of shooting.
I find the results far outweigh the only downside to the SL- the weight of the 24-90 lens.

but

I don’t mind the extra weight for a second as soon as I start editing the raw files.
The image quality of the 24-90 is worth the weight of the lens – there is simply nothing else like it.
The close focus option alone is worth the weight.

use the camera – it gets lighter and lighter lol

You end up enjoying its sturdy build and it’s versatility sparks your imagination – so many options for story telling all in one lens – you begin to admire it’s weight and learn t work with it as your ally – sinking it into your chest for longer exposers or wedging it up against something it plants itself into place. You end up forgetting about it’s weight – justifying or tolerating it because the results are so beautiful.

I hope Leica invests in this system because I’ve used nothing better.

I agree with you – weight would be an issue for long shoots in the field – but an M lens on the SL body is very much like the M240 but better and would more then suffice for extended commitments

Having just bought a Leica SL I must say that is is absolutely superb. (August 2017).

Wonderful handling and the 24-90 lens gives fantastic image quality both for stills and even in Cinema 4K. My Leica M lenses also work beautifully. I sold my Leica M cameras to buy the SL and I don’t regret it. Sure, the Ms are smaller but I plan to soon buy a Leica Q for holiday times when a small camera is needed. The Q is also superb.

Actually handling the camera is a pleasure. The 24-90 lens looks big but it is actually extremely comfortable to use if you hold it properly.

The solidity and weight of the camera makes it easy to use hand-held for video even for action subjects such as aircraft in flight giving very smooth footage even without using my professional fluid head on a tripod.

The video section is so easy to use and has instant changeover from stills setup to video. Log output is there if necessary but the normal video is so good that one doesn’t normally need the log. Superb pictures from this camera and it 24-90 lens.

I tried all the usual competitors and found them awkward to handle. Some don’t have 4.2.2. output for video. Their menus were tiresome and irritating and slow. The 4-button SL system is a pleasure to use.

I have used many cameras professionally but the SL beats them all. Fantastic handling with beautiful build quality and handling. Easy menus and quick to use in all ways.

I wonder whether some of the internet critics of the SL have actually handled one.

Hi Jay, I’m glad you’re enjoying your SL. Clearly it makes some people very happy, but I think the overall consensus has not been driven by sour grapes, but it also has little bearing on a given individual’s needs. I still think the ‘interchangeable lens Q’ was the camera Leica slept walked their way past. That would have appealed to a much broader market and, capable as the SL is, the rest of the market is moving forwards at blistering speed (lenses included).

Having now had my SL for longer than I had when I posted my original comments, I must say that I am even more pleased with it now than before.

Its handling surpasses that of any other camera I have used, including Nikon, Rollei, Canon, Fuji and Sony still cameras. The plethora of buttons and menus on some of these leave a lot to be desired and the SL viewfinder beats them all.

I also use Sony professional video cameras. Obviously, video cameras and still cameras have different shaped bodies for good reasons but the actual video from the SL is superb. I use it as a still camera and as an extra video camera for professional work.

The quality of the video is so good that I can use it whenever I cannot carry my big video camera. And the single-button changeover between still and video is a pleasure to use.

The lenses are absolutely superb and very easy to handle.

The body is also comfortable and easy to use.

The build quality is wonderful.

In fact, I cannot fault this camera in any way whatsoever.

With regard to the Leica Q, I can only say that I will be buying one soon. Any criticism of the fact that its lens is fixed is pointless. It was designed like this for good reasons. One good reason for having a fixed lens is that it prevents dust from getting on the sensor which, in many environments, is a major advantage.

This article is just so much BS. I’m tired of hearing this kind of pap.

The Leica SL is at the beginning. Both of the released zooms are superb performers. The upcoming 50mm prime is looking to be as well. A roadmap was announced at Photokina showing wide zoom, and two-three more primes coming on an announced schedule.

I bought mine as soon as it was announced and have been using it since November 16, 2015. I’ve since junked every other camera I had other than my Ms and Hasselblads. The SL works brilliantly with all my Leica M lenses as well as all my Leica R lenses, better than any other camera I have fitted them to and sometimes better than even the cameras they were originally designed for. Can’t say that for *any* other camera system.

There’s much more to come for the Leica SL, at least for those of us who don’t run around shouting, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!”

Hi Ramarren, I’m sorry you thought it was pap – I can’t win’em all! However, if you read your comment and then re-read the article you may see that I have not contradicted much of what you have said. The existing lenses are indeed superb performers, but after 12 months there are still only two of them… they’re large and heavy…and so it goes on. For your purposes (and quite a few other SL owners) the camera hits the spot and that’s great. I’m not suggesting that this should not be the case for you. Of course you aren’t alone and it is excellent to hear that others are equally thrilled with the camera. What I am suggesting is that the camera has distinct limitations in terms of its system, likely growth rate and market appeal. I also think that the camera itself struggles to define a niche that will bring in the sort of numbers of owners that will equate to ‘solid commercial success’. For a percentage of existing digital M and T owners to pick up a SL (and for good reason) is unlikely to cut the mustard when it comes to recouping the cost of development and launch. It’s cross Leica platform appeal was something I acknowledged in both articles.

I may be absolutely ecstatic about a given product, but it takes a lot more than that for it to be successful. Should that product not do well commercially would in no way diminish my own enjoyment of and respect for it. As for the sky falling, Leica has been in deep financial trouble more than a few times, so I think it’s fair to say that major new product releases all factor into the long term viability of the company. Such considerations ought to be set against the backdrop of rapidly diminishing camera sales across the board. I actually think Leica is right to pitch itself as a luxury brand above all else, but this needn’t be to the exclusion of producing knock out cameras. That said, the final section of my article asked whether the SL is part of a much broader cross-platform realignment, in which case we will see!

I still love my Sony A7R, despite it’s magpie shutter and squishy shutter release. Mine also has a big scratch down the LCD, but none of these things stopped me producing some lovely images from it this morning! You love your SL too. ‘Nuff said.

I’ve heard no complaints from Leica dealers about sales of the Leica SL. They seem to move off the shelves quite nicely. The working photographers who’ve bought them seem to be quite happy with them too, despite there being only the two zooms at present.

You said it was unknown when more lenses would appear. However, Leica published a roadmap of SL lenses at Photokina … five more coming over the next two years, one zoom and four primes. That said, how many lenses do you really need when you have two very high quality performers that cover 24 to 280 mm FoV, AND you can use any other lens Leica has made with superb results? Really?

Leica’s balance sheet seems to be in the black where most of the other manufacturers are in the red, and survive on the basis of their being a small part of a larger company.

Why then would the SL be “doomed”?

If you love your Sony, that’s fine. Why is that relevant to the SL at all, other than that YOU might not want to buy an SL?

Your article just reiterates what a half-dozen other bloggers have said, in essence: “I don’t particularly like it, it’s too expensive, it’s too big, they haven’t made four dozen lenses for it, therefore Leica is doomed.” All hot air as far as I’m concerned.

I understand that you like the camera, but I’m not sure you are quite getting where the article is coming from. I am not saying you can’t like it. I am not saying it is a bad camera. I am not even denying any of the key reasons why someone might buy it. I think you are completely missing the point.

The tangentially related point I made about my Sony is that my A7R was in relation to an apparent defensiveness. The A7R has a lot of ‘issues’ that drew a lot of criticism, but that has not taken anything away from my respect for what it can do for me. I was making the point that the issues I have raised about the SL need not result in a defensiveness from SL owners. My comments take nothing away from your respect for what the SL brings to your table. As for it making some people very happy, once again, I made it clear that I understand why this is. However, I am far from convinced that its appeal is wide enough to really succeed as a system, especially in light of needing to tip toe around the S and M lines. You have said next to nothing that contradicts the concerns I have raised about the wider appeal of the system and that was what the article was about.

As for who is buying them, aside from a very small handful of working (aka professional) photographers, the vast majority will be affluent amateurs. I think true sales figures are likely to be harder to ascertain, but hopefully they are selling well. My impression is that it has been decidedly quiet on the SL front, with a fair number of bodies and zooms hitting the used market quite quickly. The forthcoming lens releases will help, but they will take a long time to arrive and judging by the 50mm Summilux-SL have a real prospect of being enormous. Even when that lens line up arrives, it will still be quite limited and more than three years after the SL was launched.

As for who would like more lenses than two enormous primes covering 24-280mm and costing over £8,000 between them, making for a £14,000+ ‘basic kit’, was that a serious question? This may work fine for you, but I’m not sure you are in the majority there. The Leica M does not have any direction competition, but the SL does, so price becomes a bit more relevant. Getting a toehold in the M system is also a lot cheaper.

The issues I have listed in the article are my observations and thoughts, but it is abundantly clear that they are not only reasons why *I* might not buy a SL. You have acknowledged that various other bloggers have made commented on price, size etc and so you can’t have it both ways. Leica may be in the black, but would you consider the T line to have been a happening dynamic place over the last several years? It may have limped along, but it went nowhere quickly. This left quite a few early adopters quite disgruntled. Seeing as people have to part with a lot of money to buy a SL outfit, it makes sense for people to think ahead, weigh up risks (and that means lens roadmaps not quite happening on schedule too) and go in eyes open. While the system will of course expand, the market will move on. Only time will tell how well the SL works out as a commercial proposition, but in the meantime I am sure many people will continue being very happy with theirs.

I let Leica manage their business and find the armchair industry analyst role a lot of hot air, okay?

“Primarily an amateur market”: It was ever the case that there were FAR more cameras sold to amateurs than to professionals … which is obviously the case because there are FAR more amateur photographers in the world (people who do photography for the love of the pursuit) than there are professional photographers (people who make a living from their photographic work). Companies have to sell product to someone, you know, and there aren’t enough pro photographers around to pay the bills. It’s also the case that amateur photographers shouldn’t always want what supports the needs of professional photographers … different situations and usages mean different needs. To think otherwise is folly. To base a business analysis on such a folly makes the business analysis of no worth.

“Prices”: Oh, I see you’re complaining about the prices. Completely ignorable: everyone complains about the prices, yet Leica continues to sell just about every lens and body they make. Why? Because they are worth it. End of story, complain away if you must find something to complain about. Everyone does, and it makes no difference to the sales. If they’re not worth it to you, don’t buy them … easy, eh?

“Weight and size”: I have carried the SL and three lenses for all day walks in New York City, the Rockies, jaunts up and down the California cost, etc. (And I’m neither young nor particularly fit…) It’s no heavier nor more obnoxious to carry than the D750 kit or any SLR camera with pro-grade lenses ever has been, and a lot less so than some of the modern behemoth DSLR systems. The SL with both zooms and the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 fits in the same Tenba Cooper 13SLR bag as my Nikon D750 and its three similar Nikon lenses, and the bag weighs the same. A Leica M is smaller and lighter, yes, but that’s always been the case—that’s why some people have Leica Ms. A Sony A7 kit with Sony pro lenses isn’t any smaller or lighter because the lenses are bulky and it’s the lenses which make up the bulk and weight of the kit.

Bottom line: if you can’t hack it or don’t like it, that’s your issue and no reflection on the camera. You’re just like the other armchair analyst bloggers. As a professional photographer, is that what you want to be?

I’d rather read about your photographic exploits than about your analysis of the photographic equipment business.

My views on the SL may not have gone down well with you, but other comments (and private emails) suggest they were worth reading for other people. This is not all about you.

1. You are a Leica M lens owner. OK, so I covered that aspect in the article. But what about people who aren’t coming to this with existing Leica glass and whom Leica will need to court in time?

2. You hiked around with the SL and it’s lenses? So what? That does not make them weigh any less than they weigh. Besides, you can make a D750/Sony A7 kit weigh an awful lot less than a SL if you choose your favourite primes. With other systems you don’t have to use large and heavy native lenses. You have choices.

3. Price? You think the pricing is OK, but there are plenty of Leica users who think they are a bit too much even for them. I’m a Leica owner/user after all. Price is relevant to other people, if not to you.

4. Selling a product is one thing, but I’d imagine Leica aims to sell as well as they possibly can. These things can be in shades of grey.

5. How Leica manages their business is of no relevance to how desirable a camera is and to whom. The same point applies to the 5D IV. In response to criticism, Canon devotees attacked the critics and told them “Canon obviously knows their business better than you”, which completely misses the point. The fact that Canon is successful has no bearing on various people who felt the camera was a let down for them and for reasons they clearly articulated.

Bottom line: I reserve the right to express my opinions, even if other people don’t like them or agree. Some will, some won’t. We don’t have to all agree on everything. You can always decide an article is not to your tastes and move on. I’ll write a variety of articles on a variety of topics, because different people like different articles. Suggesting that the other person stop writing things you don’t agree with has unpleasant undertones and I doubt you want to be that kind of person. We don’t agree and I am OK with that. Are you?

It was never going to be a mainstream camera, that wasn’t Leica’s intent I believe. Like a Carrara GT, it’s exercise to show what’s possible. Few can justify the cost of entry, but for those who can, it adds a level of pleasure to the already pleasurable experience of photography. Hard to evaluate the benefit with a “Consumer Reports” mentally.

Have used the SL, mainly for macro and with manual lenses. It’s great. Much better than any modern Canon or Nikon camera I own. Had no problem to find adaptors – so have more macro lenses to my avail than ever.

For portrait the R lenses are excellent (1.4/80, 2/90 or even the Apo Macro 2.8/100). But the best portrait lens is the Apo SL 90-280. It is big and heavy but what does it matter ? (closest focusing distance 0.6m)
Even better, in about 9 months comes a Apo SL 2/75 and in about 12 months from now a Apo SL 2/90.
In the Leica forum it is easy to find the details about additional lenses to come. (75, 90, 16-35 and 35)

Hi Stephan, big and heavy matters if you have to carry it on a long walk, especially if that walk goes uphill 🙂 If you’re having to hike much, or carry it for many hours, it doesn’t matter much at all. This is when I use my 645Z. Now that is a big heavy camera.

Out of interest, what is it that you like so much about the camera for macro shooting? What lenses are you using – R lenses? Modern Canon and Nikon lenses are just tools and I have never ‘bonded’ with any of them either. What do you like about using the SL when compared to DSLRs? Is it function, user experience/ease of use?

It’s mainly EVF vs OVF that makes the SL my favorite for macro.
With a high-res EVF it is possible to see in detail what is in focus across the whole image area. Main tool is the 10x enlargement of critical areas. Generally with EVFs preview is an extremely useful tool (AF or exposure preview).
SL has the best EVF I have tried – quick response, high resolution and easy access, even for people wearing glasses.
Regarding macro lenses – tried anything I could get. Maybe like best the Leica R Macro 2.8/100 and Zeiss Milvus 2/100 (former Macro Planar).

EVFs certainly do transform macro work and there are loads of great lenses to choose from. I don’t know if its my imagination, but macro lenses often represent an incredible bargain on the used market too. One of my favourite aspects of EVF use is one’s ability to shoot into the sun without risking your retina. It’ll be interesting to see how EVFs develop over the next few years and there is surely a lot of refinement that will come relatively quickly.

Well, Tom, all I can say is that you’re awfully defensive about your position for someone who is so upright and convinced about your opinion and your right to express it.

Reduced to its essentials, my opinion is that I disagree with you, and find your opinion to merely be the same as too many other amateur business analyst bloggers who don’t like a particular camera. I’ve seen this same kind of article posted about the SL on every forum for a year by many others who just wanted something else. You didn’t have to respond at all.

Those who bought the SL and actually use it all seem to be unanimous in their praise for it. There are as many of them as there are of you.

Well, I for one do not agree thet Tom’s opinion is just the same as “too many other amateur business analyst bloggers”. I just read it again and it seems very well argued from a potential buyer’s point of view. Of course, if all the negatives about the camera that he lists such as lack of choice, slow output, price and weight/size don’t bother you,then you are hardly likely to agree.

The key here is really how many people are buying this and will buy it over the lifetime of the camera. My suspicion is not many, but I will be happy to be proved wrong. It is obviously a decent camera, with really good lenses, but whether it will sell well despite disadvantages listed and explored remains to be seen.

Key for a user should be how well a camera supports his work, not how many other photographers buy it.

Key should also be that the facts are correct and in accordance with the personal experience. Have you ever used this camera ? Probably not, why else would you talk about slow output when you have one of the fastest cameras currently on the market in front of you.

Also the weight is just average (even sub-par) for semi-pro and pro cameras with full-metal body. And hardly any user complains about these cameras. They are bought for robustness and high quality, their lenses as well. Not for convenience alone.

With the native lenses you can handle anything from 24mm to 280mm – a very limited choice indeed. Other new systems come with a 24mm, a 35mm and 70mm lens and users regard it as almost complete and very well usable.
Similar to the Sony cameras there are AF adapters, so that EOS AF lenses can be used. Also expected for Nikon AF lenses. This is/was accepted as a way of completing a limited portfolio. Quite common for Sony users, but here not even mentioned. Not to speak of the hundreds of manual lenses that can be used (special lenses like Tilt/Shift, etc.).

Summary: No need for anybody to ignore the facts on a ominous “negativ list”, as this list is hardly reflecting reality.

Absolutely – a person should buy what works best for them. If that’s the SL, then great.

Regarding your other points, again, personal opinion is just that. What I tried to do in my article was comment on the SL system as an overall proposition as may be relevant to different groups of people. It’s erroneous logic to splice out individual points and argue them in the absence of associated downsides. Almost everything is weighed up in terms of ‘pros and associated cons’. For example, you mention 24-280mm not being a limited choice, but you are only presenting one facet of this issue. Here are some other considerations that cannot be detached from the stated 24-280mm coverage:

£14,800 price tag.
Near 4Kg weight for a 24MP camera.
No lens faster than f2.8 at present and only the 50mm Summilux SL on the near horizon.
You need to carry nearly 2Kg just to be able to shoot with any native lens longer than 90mm. You’ll also need a big bag.

Yes, there are alternate solutions (such as using R, M, or 3rd party lenses), but this is a different discussion and was also covered in outline in the article. They too have pros and cons.

As other commenters have posted, if these things don’t matter to you, then clearly they don’t matter. However, ignoring them won’t make them matter any less to other people. A person looking for a new camera doesn’t need to spend a week shooting a SL to know right from the get-go that there may be no point in doing so. Some of the ‘show stopping’ reasons may be listed above, but others may be covered elsewhere in the article. In the same vein, you don’t need to test drive a Ferrari to know it won’t be an appropriate choice for someone who lives on a farm at the end of a bumpy track.

I’m sure the SL is a very appealing camera for some people. My time as a Leica owner has not made that hard to imagine. Heck, I’d like one. I just would be able to justify paying for one, considering what other competing systems can do. But maybe this is it: luxury goods are not about need. However, this is not to say that the SL does not outperform other cameras if your specific requirements are X,Y,Z.

I will be hugely interested to see how the SL develops. I don’t think any reasonable person has any interest in anything other than success.

I am surprised that it’s you, Tom, because I was mainly addressing Robert. That’s why I added only single points and no strategic thinking.
But fine, Glad to see you so interested.

For your Sony camera it is acceptable to include lenses from any seller, but for the Leica SL you accept only native lenses. Why ?
In reality the SL has a wider range of 10-560mm so not a lot anybody can be missing.: I add the list for explanation at the end.
Your enormous total weight is also questionable – no need to use all lenses on all occasions. An expedition or trip will use different gear than a studio portrait session or macro work in a lab.
An example (landscape photography with UWA zoom):
The SL plus typical UWA zoom – the Leica 16-18-21 – weighs 847g + 335g = 1182g
Sony a7R plus UWA zoom Zeiss Vario Tessar 16-35: 625g + 518g = 1143g
The weight difference is small, but not the full truth. The SL is in this case smaller and more agile than the Sony/Zeiss combo.
At the end the camera alone is only 222g lighter, and that is left if you add an excellent lens like the Milvus 21mm to both cameras. Special planning needed to handle that ? Hardly.

Being fast and highly corrected lenses the Leica M glass is popular with Leica as well as Sony users. So there is a wide choice of extraordinary fast lenses. OK. currently they are only manual, but this is not really bad regarding the tiny DoF they offer. Possibly there will also be an AF adapter in the future (a la Techart for Sony).

Prices are not made by you or me – I am a buyer/user. So I will not start defending any price tag. I leave that to the producers. But hardly anybody needs to buy the full gear. Or would you suggest that a Sony user buys all three cameras (a7, a7S, a7R) and all lenses from Sony and Zeiss ? Hardly.
I started in January with the camera and will add lenses if I need them. The users considering buying a professional camera are unlikely to start from scratch. Leasing rarely used gear is sometimes economically the best solution.

Strategic thinking is fine, if you are the owner of a business. But as a photographer I think in “special cases”, that in summary need to cover all my activities. A wonderful strategy on paper is not useful for me.
And regarding strategies, the SL and Leica M have different mounts and very heterogeneous user groups – how would they ever merge ?
The SL and TL have the “same” mount, so the lenses are exchangeable – a useful idea I have not yet taken into account to complete the picture of available lenses. Especially for video use.

So we agree to disagree. I see mainly the practical aspects of the Leica SL, while you prefer to prove that its strategy cannot work.

Tom, Your analogy regarding the Titanic and how you think Leica might have built it is illogical. Maybe you’re forgetting that in 1912 (when the Titanic sank) Oskar Barnack was designing his miniature marvel UR camera (probably not even named Leica at that time) which by 1925 had evolved into the world’s first successful 24x36mm format miniature camera – and subsequently copied and imitated by the forerunners of today’s camera manufacturers. Ninety one years later Leica cameras have moved on a bit and the design philosophy for the AF SL and TL system is well documented for all to discover and read, e.g., it’s a new Leica camera system requiring AF telecentric lenses – lenses which will out-perform existing manual focus M lenses and discontinued R lenses – but using new AF ICL cameras which also retain compatibility with both. Given the SL and TL common lens mount, and AF telecentric lens requirements, the small TL i.e. AF Summicrons you and others desire just ain’t gonna happen. Small M lenses with fast AF remain an impossible dream. But small M manual focus lenses will continue … and if their owners wish to stick a black dot on their cameras that does not imply they’re ‘lunatics’.

Hi Dunk, that’s the best comment I’ve read in ages! BTW, I was referring to people sticking black tape over the red Leica dot on a Leica built Titanic and it wasn’t meant seriously of course. Black Leica dots are another matter altogether, especially as Leica’s LHSA M6 TTL cameras were made with black dots as original. They always looked rather nice, but a nice black paint MP with no dot always seemed prettiest to me.

The internet had been a great resource to me when I was considering the M8 but even now I’m no expert on the points I’m offering so I’m not sure if it’s relevant in context to your article but some points to work with your well thought out article.

1. M lenses need to be relevant to both film and digital users on rangefinders hence they need to be smaller so that the viewfinder is unobstructed.
2. Being smaller, the consequence is there is greater light fall-off in the corners. I checked this by comparing the leica literature with zeiss zm lenses and in every case, for the lenses I wanted, the zeiss lenses had less falloff and are bigger in dimension and intrudes more in the viewfinder.
3. SLR lenses designs have even less falloff in the corners, are constrained by the mirror, have more CA and other aberrations unless the volume of glass is more mass-ive. i.e. the bigger the lens, the less you need to correct for problematic design compromises.
4. Greater light fall off on digital sensors means the on-camera digital corrections is likely to produce more noise in the corners affected the overall image quality, particularly for wide angle lenses.

With regards to business viability:
1 All camera manufacturers are facing a shrinking market. All of them are mass market and need volume to sell at affordable prices except Leica. Leica might be in a good position as they have faced this situation several times already.
2 The SL only needs to be sufficient pro features and a good solid foundation of lenses to be viable to a budding professional and act as a complement to existing equipment : Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, etc
3 The EVF and AF weakness will be overcome relatively quickly given enough time.
4 The right sensor and lens combination can deliver top notch excellence in quality thru matched optics over a wide range of use cases. M, TL, S, R lenses. Leica even sell cine PL lenses. It’s actually economical if you buy an expensive lens that you will use for 20 years. 90% of my stuff is at the 21, 35 and 90.
5. Canon T/S lenses work very well on the SL apparently.

With regards to the future, some viable possibilities:
1 If the T can morph into a super 35 video cam / 1.5x crop factor camera with video centric handling….rather like the Panasonic Lumix. That’s the indie film market.
2 If Sinar (owned by Leica I believe) has a solution in 35mm format, all of the best of swiss precision in view camera functionality may well be available to the SL. This is more of a medium format use case though.

Hi Tom
Enjoyed your view and the responses.
Like to share my experience. I own the Sl with 24-90 for six months and use it professionally every day. I thought I would buy me a small M lens but did not. Thing is, this zoom is so outstanding it really is all I need. It outperforms all my Nikon primes. And the extra 20 mm compared to the Nikon 24/70 makes it very complete. It is all I have in my camera bag so less weight than before. Stil I get your point. Its in my interest that this camera is succesfull enough. And I do have wishes, but could be solved by firmware. Would like to set the viewfinders whitebalance separate from the camera for instance. As for the lenses I would have prefered a 135 or 180. Same size as the 24/90 would be perfect. The 90/280 is to big for me. Btw with primes this expensive the Q seems very affordable , might have one sooner than another lens!
And then another thing, I must say its nice to own a leica! People comment to it. It is a bit special. I had this with my hasselblad too. Never with my Nikons. I also see that my clients respond to it in a positive way.
Anyway, nice post and the people who respond here all are very well informed, both sides of the story.

Hi Wiep, its good to hear your enjoying your SL. I have always loved the way Leica lenses render, especially in colour. The 24-90mm range is definitely a nice plus over the 70mm end of most pro zooms and there is yet to be a 24-105mm that is truly outstanding across the range. And yes, the Q is especially good value (despite the high price tag) when compared to the Sony RX1R II which lacks the Leica loveliness and isn’t really any cheaper. I know my decision would be simple!

Hello Tom,
A bit late to the party with my comments, but here goes. Thanks for your review and observations. I’ve handled an SL and I have to admit, from a ‘Leica traditional design philosophy’, it did absolutely nothing for me. I mean from a connection to the Leica tradition of having an ‘in hand, feels like a Leica from the past – it feels like a Leica’.
That may seem irrelevant to some, but it speaks volumes with where Leica is as a brand. I think while capable, Leica is somewhat lost, and I believe that is due to the ownership. This is kind of been an ongoing issue since the mid-1970’s when they started to hit a financial wall, and the upcoming electronic camera age and auto-focus – which Leica helped to pioneer with early concepts.
They’ve always had the technological prowess; but they’ve lacked a vision on how to move forward with the tech in a form factor that possessed the ‘Leica lineage’. Yes, they were financial strapped until the late 1990’s, but they continued to be extremely conservative. They really blundered with AF and the SLR/DSLR market. When they eventually dropped out of the SLR market, they left a large share of a very loyal user base out in the cold – the R base.
If a company shoves people/customers/users out the door it makes a statement that they don’t care, or that they are lost. The Leica SL has nothing in common with one of the best cameras they ever made – the film SL/SL2 line. The traditional Leica feel of those cameras had an ‘M-like’ feel. It felt like a traditional Leica in hand. Leica needs to forget trying to be like other brands and be themselves. The new SL doesn’t come across to me like a Leica, and the remaining line-up of the T system, (though the Q is well executed) and the Sl’s odd form factor/huge lenses/ line-up is Leica trying to be relevant in name only. You are correct that they don’t seem to understand how to launch product. It seems to me – and I’ve been using Leica’s for 40 years – they need to step back and realize as owners they may ‘know’ Leica tradition, but they don’t really understand what to do with it.
Happy Holidays.

Hi RMR
You confuse me.
First you accuse leica being conservative, then you are disappointed that the Sl is not like the 40 or 50 year old Sl or M. Only the q does it for you because its the only camera with that ancient leica feeling.
For me the Sl is my first Leica, I have no clue what the predecessor looks like and dont care that much either. Whats important for me if it delivers and if it fits me and my work. And it sure does. I use it for commercial work, portraits, street, reportage. Everything with the 24/90 and a Zeiss 105. Camera works great, build in WiFi and the leica app on my iPad make it easy to show results to my clients. No worry for dust or water, solid and I arranged everything the way I want it, with profiles for various jobs. By the way, you have to invest some time to get this camera.
On the other hand an old school approach does appeal to me. I bought and still have a Nikon df and a fuji xt. But I never use them anymore. With the Sl they started from scratch. Sometimes thats a good thing. The camera is very innovative, versatile, Has an amazing viewfinder and a lot can be improved by firmware. Problem is, I think: not leica people just dont care and leica people are very conservative. They want a leica that looks and feels like 40 years ago, small, ff, with 36mp, electronic viewfinder, fast af etc. A Q with interchangeable lenses that fits their M lenses as well. Would be nice.
Till then I just have to do with my Sl
.

It is too early to judge this one year old camera, and about two years old L-mount. Other company like Sony has been working on their mirrorless system since 2010 (NEX3 &5). Panasonic and Olympus were earlier (2008). I think all we need is to be patient. Leica is working on this system, and in my opinion, they are not slow. They are being careful. They don’t want users to be disappointed on the lens performance. Now, we have three native lenses two of which is very versatile, high quality zoom. By the end of next year, we will have four more. While waiting, we can adapt lenses from other manufacturer via adaptor which is readily available from Leica, Novoflex and Kipon.

Before I use Leica SL, I have used/tested many other mirrorless/dslr system, including Sony A7RII, Nikon D600, Fuji X-T1, Olympus OMD EM5 II, etc. But I feel this camera and 24-90mm lens combo is the best so far. Image quality wise, it is excellent, color is very nice, very natural and not oversaturated or oversharpened. 24MP is perfect for full frame sensor. Bigger than that, it will start to face problems such as higher noise, slower performance, hard to keep steady, diffraction problem, potentially higher price etc.

In my experience, performance of this camera is very good, autofocus for still subject is very fast. However, I think AF tracking need to be faster and more reliable he he he. I used A7R II before, and it will take a few second just to view the image in 100% to check focus. SL’s ergonomic and interface is excellent as well. I can adapt to it pretty easily. On the other hand, when using other camera from Sony and Olympus, I have to spend days to deal with enormous menu and thinking about how to customized the camera properly. It is just too complex.

For me, SL is the best balanced mirrorless camera available right now. Yes, Medium format system can create a very nice 3D look and has higher resolution, but it lack versatile zoom lenses. I will need to carry plenty of lenses. At the end, it will be too heavy and inconvenient. Smaller sensor like APS-C and four thirds have compromised on dynamic range and high ISO performance. Now, I am happy to travel only with Leica SL and 24-90mm and get many excellent result.

Many people complaint that the camera and the zoom lens are big, I think it is true, but it’s still manageable for many photographers. I have some friends that use smaller mirrorless camera but they also bring their full frame DSLR with them, off course with several lenses for each camera. Their backpack are a lot heavier than mine. It is because they are not confident with their mirrorless camera at the moment. Other people/blogger often complaints about specification such as lack of megapixel, but they are usually people who never touch or use SL, and never print their images.

About the weight & size complaints, I think Leica is listening, three new lenses for next year will be quite compact (35mm f/2, 75mm f/2 and 90mm f/2 (67mm filter size)). Next, compact zoom lens such as 28-75mm f/3.5-5.6 could be introduced if there is demand for that. Unfortunately for now, Leica has no plan to make smaller SL camera, but I am optimistic in a few years, they will make smaller SL, maybe rangefinder body design.

I also see SL camera as the best full frame mirrorless camera to adapt other FF lenses, including Leica M lenses. It is better in SL, because it is a bigger mount compared to Sony E mount. E-mount is too small. We’ll get less than optimal image quality especially on the edge of the frame. And lastly, I think SL and M won’t merge. M system will survive and keep going on as a classic system (compact, simplified control and manual focus prime lenses). SL system is for newer generation. It is designed for pro photographers/photo enthusiasts who demand fast performance camera system with autofocus with rugged built.

I am considering buying a SL in the next 2 months. Why?mainly because of the many R lenses I have (7). Their quality is top and I use several on my D810. I have also 6 M lenses and look forward to see the results, I have no plan to buy the zooms as I have Zuiko and Nikkor zooms. Getting the SL will give an expensive but “light” opportunity to use these gems R lenses.

I have a question: Leica L-R adaptor costs almost three times the price of Novoflex that itself is double the price of Kipon. Is the quality that different?

Hi Pierre, it sounds like the SL will be an excellent addition for you. Regarding the quality of the adaptors, I have Kipon, Fotodiox and Novoflex adaptors for my Sony FE cameras. My favourite overall is the little Kipon M to E mount adaptor. It is a better design than the Fotodiox Pro and lenses release more easily. It is also made of alloy and so feels much lighter. For very heavy use, alloy might not wear as well over the long term, however, the weight difference is significant. The Noxoflex adaptors are made like tanks. I have not had any problems with any of my adaptors, although I would suggest that is is likely that the Leica adaptors are made with tighter tolerances and are likely to be more perfect from the point of view of perfectly aligning the lenses with the sensor. An option would be to buy a Kipon or Novoflex and see how it is. If it performs as you expect, then your needs are met. If not, you can always get the Leica adaptor later.

The adapters from Leica have different functionality than the other adapters.
The M to SL adapter can recognize the 6-bit coded M lenses, so that they are automatically recognized by the camera.
The Novoflex adapter cannot. (So I think the original is a good choice.)
The R to SL adapter can read the ROMs of R lenses equipped with such a ROM. And with the latest R zooms it can recognize the current focal length. Other adapters cannot. It depends, if you have such lenses, if the adapter is useful for you. If not, you can buy a simpler adapter or instead add a R to M adapter (resulting in an adapter stack, but it works very nicely, I use it daily).
You could also discuss the best option in the fora – e.g. the Leica forum.

I have the Leica adaptor to use my M lenses on my SL and it is beautifully made and works perfectly because it is made by Leica, for Leica.
I assume the R adaptor is equally good.
I don’t know about other manufacturers’ adaptors. They might be fantastic.
But I don’t need them as the Leica adaptor is perfect – and you can’t get better that that!

I am a Cinematographer who also takes stills. I am trading in my RED ONE Digital Cinema camera for a Leica SL to shoot movies, music videos and tv commercials. For video people it’s small, light and flexible with images that rival digital cinema cameras costing three times as much. Paired with an Atomos outboard recorder it’s an amazing hybrid camera for professionals like me. I should also mention that it is the only hybrid DSLR camera that allows for mounting PL cinema lenses.

Hi. I like to read all these comments. I have just taken the opportunity to obtain an SL after my M9 had sensor corrosion. I love the wide angle shooting with M, but also missed telephoto photography with my old R cameras. I am loving the SL. The electronic viewfinder, atleast in many views, is very impressive – like looking through the old R3. The focus peaking is amazing, especially with wide open M lenses and the horizon assist is great. Also, the exposure adjusts as you close down the f number, which was not possible with my old Canon 5D etc when using R lenses. The colour rendition is beautiful – the files require much less work in lightroom than the M9. The camera feels amazing. It feels like it will last forever and is beautiful in many ways. I feel like the potential is enormous. I can imagine that some professionals would be frustrated with the SL, depending on their type of work. But as an amateur who want to enjoy using a beautiful and high performing instrument, I’m very happy and feel that we now have a superb R lens solution after all these years- while also a great M lens option.

Hi I read a fair few of these articles and have found them very helpful and informative. There is, however, an assumption that everyone with a Leica has very deep pockets and scant regard for money.

For some of us it is a market we enter through secondhand kit and what a joy it is when the gear is indestructible, trades often at a substantial discount of the list price and instantly holds its value.

I have just sold my Q with a view to buying an M10. A big call for me as it is only available new. On the trade in of the Q for a secondhand prime lens, I picked up and tried a secondhand SL. I like to know I can sell something again without too much loss and at close to half the price of the M10 it was too good a deal to resist. It is after all about the same size of an M10 with a grip, does much the same thing (but with a cracking EVF) and I am only really interested in using (used) M lenses.

It is for me ‘a Q with interchangeable lenses’ and whilst it is heavier it isn’t unbearable and the output is simple outstanding.

There isn’t a perfect bit of kit for everyone but this is just about spot on from my perspective. I can also always sell it at little or no loss.

I just picked up an SL two weeks ago, and couldn’t be happier with my decision.
I had weighed the differences between the 3 year old SL vs the just released Sony A7riii, and for me the leica came out on top. I have not sold my M240 yet, but am thinking about it, as the SL with M lenses is compact enough to have in a backpack on technical climbs.
I have the SL 24-90mm which is in fact a monster, but my M 90mm, and 21mm are yielding superb results. The 24-90mm is unbelievable quality for a zoom, very pleased.
I am anxiously awaiting the 16-35mm release, but in the interim the Tri-elmar 16-18-21 is filling the wide end for me.
I am curious of your thoughts about the SL, now that we are 1.5 years on since this review.

I’m glad the SL is working out well for you. Which 21mm are you using on it, out of interest?

My views haven’t changed much really. Thats probably because the rollout of lenses has been relatively slow and the recently announced APO Summicrons seem fairly large for their aperture (not to mention, very pricey, even by Leica standards). I wrote a short piece about the SL APO Summicrons here.

I think the key thing when considering the comments I have made is to understand that I am not saying the SL is a bad camera or won’t suit some people better than anything else. It is clear from the people who’ve written in that plenty of SL owners love their cameras. My views are more an appraisal of the concept and overall balance of qualities, with a bit of ‘industry analysis’ thrown in. It’s an averaging, if you like, but we are of course all individual data points! In summary, I still feel the size and bulk of the camera and lenses (more the lenses actually), combined with the cost of them, limits the SL’s appeal as an individual system, on average. As I said throughout my writings, things change rather a lot if a person is already a M system owner…. or if one’s needs nicely match what the system does offer. I think the 16-35 will be an important addition to the system, as will any compact primes, should Leica ever make any. Personally, I think it will prove to be a mistake not to have provided a range of compact and sensibly priced ‘core primes’ (say, 28,35, 50, 90mm). Perhaps Leica will introduce Elmarit or Summarit primes that will allow users to put a more compact outfit together? I guess time will tell! However, perhaps it is deliberate strategy to have SL owners considering the purchase of M lenses as compact options, because that may also help to drive subsequent M body sales. I can only guess here, but I think Leica needs to do more to make the SL system really stand on its own two feet without owners having to consider lenses that were never made with the SL in mind. I also still feel that limitations on the higher end S series has boxed the SL in rather too tightly. I also still feel 24MP is the sweet spot for the average Full Frame users, but it makes the design of such spectacularly good, expensive and large lenses feel like gratuitous overkill. It simply doesn’t take £4000 to provide a 35mm f2 lens that performs spectacularly from corner to corner on a full frame 24mp sensor. Even for Leica. 50MP is another matter, but the SL is nowhere near that resolution. Even the S is some way short.

I’m talking purely from the pragmatic point of view of producing images, not the pleasure of ownership. The SL is a Leica product and I know very well how lovely they are to hold and use. However, I would not be comfortable agreeing that ‘cameras with knobs and buttons’ are all missing a trick. Some are, and Leica is very good with simple menus, however many rather complex cameras are complex for a reason: they offer massive lists of features. Even with Sony cameras, customisation is so good that you never have to go near the main menu once the camera is set up. The end result is that a raft of features are a button, or two clicks away. As a user of both the Fujifilm and Sony E systems, they both skin the cat very differently, but they both work very well and offer professional users a lot of options and a lot of options. Whilst many amateurs find this complexity very intimidating and annoying, many professionals see the opportunity offered and persist in setting things up and getting used to things so that they can do what they want very quickly. I cannot really think of any buttons or knobs I’d wish away from my A7 series cameras, or my XT series. I use them all and prefer to have direct access to features when working quickly. Menu surfing, no matter how clear, is always slower and often less flexible. Just my opinion of course and i all depends on what you use the camera for.

Tom,
Thank you for your reply.
The 21mm I use is the Super Elmarit M or 21mm SEM. My 90mm is the Summicron. Both very lovely lenses.
As a bit of background to understand my thinking; I used to shoot for a newspaper back in the 80’s and 90’s, and had the amazing privilege of having a darkroom in my house since I was 11 years old. I still have 2 medium format Mamiyas, and 3 Nikon F3s. I also have a lot of glass, Nikon, Zeiss and Mamiya that I will never part with. This may help explain why I prefer less features in a camera than more.
I would prefer to not have video at all.
I recently got rid of my Nikon D810s, and Nikon Zooms to fund the purchase of a new body. I was leaning heavily towards Sony, until I picked up a friends SL and started shooting it.
I love my M leica because it is so compact that there is never an excuse to not have a quality camera with me.
I shoot mainly landscapes and adventure, with the occasional street photography when I visit certain cities.
I was thinking that your answer to me might be slightly different with the new releases of native lenses, and the plethora of adapters available since your first review.
Yes, Leica seems to be taking their time getting things to market, but rushing things to market often proves to damage a brand worse than taking their time to get it right.
I looked at Sony vs Leica because of the mirrorless options. In my opinion, Nikon and Canon are dinosaurs that may not be in business in 10 years, unless they catch up very fast in the mirrorless market. It would be a shame for such great optical companies to vanish from the Camera market.
I think that Leica was very smart putting out the SL to compete with Sony, in having a camera that can use any manufacturers lens, with the use of very high end adapters, and do so with desired result.
When considering the latest Sony A7rii against the SL, a few things stood out for me that swayed my decision.
1. I like the feel of the Leica in my hand as opposed to the Sony
2. The longer lower end native shutter speed of 60 sec vs Sony’s 30sec
3. The faster top end shutter speed of the SL
4. Native Leitz optics
The argument about more megapixels vs less is not that relevant anymore, in my opinion, and why Sony has on offer the A9 at only 24mp. The Leica store in Palm Beach Florida has a 60″ print of the Dalai Llama taken by Anne Curry that is “lifelike” sharp, taken with an early M8 10mp sensor. This is an argument best left up to the engineers, but the final image quality is my goal.
I hadn’t asked about buttons, but since you brought it up I will oblige. I have some very close friends who are high profile photographers, so much so that I don’t want to use their names without permission, but their comments always lean towards desiring a more simplistic camera versus one with so many different options.
I never use any program modes, and always prefer to shoot on full manual, all of the time. Auto-focus is something I have always resisted using in my shooting style, but the Sony and Leica auto focus systems are pretty darned amazing. I was always cursing my Nikon and Canon auto-focus.
I really like the assignable buttons on the back of the SL, and currently have them configured for Focus Mode, ISO, Drive Mode and Exposure metering. For me, less is more.
Regards to cost of the equipment, I think you need to take into account market share, manufacturing techniques, and economics of scale. I think that quality would suffer for Leica if they tried to scale up production to compete with a massive company such as Sony.
The Sony camera is amazing and is stimulating the photography market again, in large part due to the video capabilities of their product line. The other great thing about Sony is the ability to use E. Leitz lenses :-}
I certainly don’t want to change anyone’s mind on which camera they want to purchase, but I do appreciate other points of view and user experiences such as yours. I would like to try a Fujifilm x-pro2 as it looks like a great camera for having in the pack when climbing mountains, and a company dedicated to listening to it’s users.
I thought you may have a more favourable opinion of the SL now, with the release of newer optical choices, but as you say in your tag at the end “it all depends on what you use the camera for”.
Thank you for you weblog!

Hi Axel, thanks for your thorough explanation. I think it is fair to say that my opinion of the SL as a system is on the one hand somewhat better by virtue of the additional lenses; however, the downside (for me) is the lenses they’ve released. I really thought some cracking medium sized or even compact lenses would be released and really wish they’d done so. However, the optically stellar lenses they are bringing to market will surely have their fans – I recognise that. I still regard Leica lenses, on average, as peerless. The only issue being that some of the competition have closed the gap at much lower prices.

I too appreciate simplified cameras and rarely use even a fraction of the total functions that are available on some of my bodies. I tend to find the ones I want and assign them to various locations for the best possible access under my usage circumstances. That said, I usually assign something to every customizable button. One press of a button and a selection is always quicker than three clicks within a menu and a selection. Buttons may create visual clutter and detract from the impression of simpleness, but they can create an operational simplicity of their own. They also have the advantage of not always requiring you to look at them and that’s where even the cleanest menus have their disadvantages. As always, how much this matters will depend on usage. An architectural shoot is nothing like a location fashion shoot, which in turn is nothing like a heaving wedding. For me, lots of buttons tends to be not what I’d want for street or reportage, but it is exactly what I’d want for location commercial work or shooting a wedding. Conversely, camera with lots of knobs and dials tend to get knocked out when going into and out of pockets or bags a lot. As always, there’s no ‘fits all’ solution, just a choice of compromises.

I’d be interested to hear what you think of the X-Pro2. I have one, but feel more inclined towards the X-T2, which is not what I had expected and is really more of a compliment to the X-T2 than a knock against the X-Pro2, which is still a fab camera of course (I use mine a lot).

There is still a big gap in the Leica line up IMO and it lies somewhere between the SL, the TL and the Q! For me, that would be the sweet spot, but it seems that Leica has different ideas and that’s fair enough. I hope they find lots of fans, because I still love Leica and, with the right product at the right price, I could easily be back….

As a professional user of the Leica SL I simply cannot see what the critics are criticising.

Since I posted comments last September, I have had another five months of professional use of the SL for both stills and video (alongside my professional video camera) and I simply cannot fault its performance.

The 24-90 lens is fantastic, versatile and very comfortable to use and its weight and shape make it extremely easy to hand-hold for video although I usually use it on my very high quality professional tripod with a proper fluid head.

Smooth focussing makes slow hand-operated zooms very easy (if necessary) and the picture quality is wonderful with beautiful colour and sharpness. I recently filmed a professional job in low light in a church in very mixed lighting of tungsten, LED, unknown fluorescent and changeable daylight through stained glass and the video is lovely.

I use M lenses on it if I need a small camera. The large focussing and zoom rings of the SL lenses make them so easy to use especially for video.

Although I usually work with a sound recordist, the built-in microphones give excellent sound either as an ambient track or sync track. Naturally, this depends on the location’s acoustics.

At the British Society of Cinematographers Expo recently I asked a lens adapter manufacturer whether they made adapters to use other lenses on an SL should I needed to. They all replied “If you’ve got Leica lenses, why would you want to?”

Of course, they were right.

Most users do not need more than 4K for video or television, if that, and even the Sony F65 cinema camera is only 8K. More pixels do not always mean better pictures.

The SL is so easy to use that, like most Leicas, you can concentrate on making a good picture rather than fiddling with the ridiculous knobs and menus of other cameras. But it’s all there if you like fiddling although, to me, constant fiddling with menus is one mark of an amateur. I like to concentrate of making the picture.

And the viewfinder is wonderful.

You only have to hold this camera to feel how good it is. The old Leitz advertising slogan “Just hold a Leica’ certainly applies to the SL.

The design and handling of the SL is absolutely superb and so much better than all its competitors. Frankly, there is no comparison and, frankly, I would pay twice the price simply because of its solid quality and superb handling.

It is good that a mixture of comments are allowed on this forum without censorship but I can’t help feeling that the people who actually use SLs love them and it seems to be the have-nots who criticise them!

Of course, it is unlikely that anyone who has spent thousands of pounds on a camera will criticise it, and thus themselves for buying it, but it’s the people who really know what they are talking about who will have the most valid comments.

Many criticisms are not very useful because they are pointless – the camera exists and those who want one, buy one, and those who don’t, don’t! Pontificating about what Leitz should do, might do, or might not do, is also pointless.

Leitz has indeed produced some odd cameras but that doesn’t make the great ones less good.

Any camera that suits you and your purpose can useful but some are certainly better made than others.

With regard to M lenses on an SL, I sometimes use my Elmarit 21mm and 28mm M-lenses on my SL (both f2.8) when I want the full facilities of the camera but with a smaller size setup and they work perfectly for still and video. I simply don’t need larger apertures because the sensor is so good and I am not looking for extremely narrow depth of field. That is something that has become an overdone fad recently – useful in the right circumstances but not the Holy Grail of film-making.

In spite of the size criticised by some, I will be buying the 16-35 SL zooms next month . In fact, I love the size of the SL zooms because they are so comfortable to hold and so stable to shoot with. I don’t have giant hands but the whole SL setup is easy to handle.

One must remember that M-lenses on an SL do not have autofocus whereas SL prime lenses do, so are bigger. However, if you know what you are doing, you can focus perfectly well although, obviously, the larger focussing rings of the SL zooms are easier. However, both take practice and skill, things which seem be getting lost in today’s age of technology doing the work.

Some may feel that Leica lenses are overpriced compared with the opposition but I suggest they look at the cost of professional cine lenses which, like the SL, are not mass-market plastic junk but heavy-duty professional equipment. There is a massive difference. For example, Leica Summilux Cine lenses cost up to $42,000 dollars each. Not exactly for the general amateur market but they have a fantastic reputation so someone must be using them in spite of the price. You are not just paying for the name as some seem to think!

Often overlooked in reviews is the fact that, unlike stills, video and cine use fixed frame rates and specific shutter speeds – and for good reasons. Some reviewers of the SL have admitted that they are not experts in video production. That is honest but, by their own admission, such reviews cannot give a proper idea of the video capabilities of the SL.

Although the SL is obviously not the same as a purpose-built video camera, its video is really excellent and its handling in video mode is fantastic – easy to use with great auto-focus and beautifully smooth manual focussing. The operation of manual focussing for stills and video is different – that’s why film sets have focus pullers.

Hello again, I’m very happy to hear everyone’s opinion and to have them shared for all to read. That’s the reason this blog is here and why I enjoy it! As for thinking about what we’d like manufacturers to do, I’m not sure its pointless. Community opinions are visible to the various manufacturers and some lurk in all sorts of places to read what’s being said (Leica comes to mind especially). I think a lot of people also find it fun/interesting to do so, which needs no further justification really. I find the camera market fascinating and would probably love a role in product development, but that’s not going to happen for a thousand different reasons.

I also don’t think it is necessary to own something to know you don’t want to own it. Specs alone can deliver enough information to make that decision (e.g. weight of body and lenses), or the absence of a ‘must have’ feature. Price is of course another matter. As always, it’s about being rational, informed and objective, rather than presumptuous or prejudiced. Clearly an opinion on how the camera delivers particular aspects of performance (and to what level) is much more credible coming from a user than someone who has read spec sheets, but that all becomes rather irrelevant if the camera doesn’t meet a fundamental ‘must have’ requirement elsewhere. I agree that people will argue the toss on all sorts of things online, without any real insight. With this article (and some others) I do try to look at cameras from a slightly bigger picture view point. Once there is interest, or something ‘possibly meets requirements’ there is no substitute for hearing detailed comments from those who’ve spent a lot of time working with something. As you allude to, users are a valuable resource, but are not always the best source of that information.

Zooming back out to consider the SL as a system again, I don’t think I have heard from any SL users who don’t not already own various other compatible Leica products, which is interesting in itself. In my original piece I wondered how successful a product could be without being compelling to to ‘new to Leica owners’ and I still feel the SL has proven of limited success here. As a compliment to existing lenses and bodies I saw it as a much more compelling proposition from the outset and so I’m glad to hear that it has not disappointed. None of us has to justify being happy with any camera and I certainly don’t mean to ask any SL users to do so. My opinions are very detached ‘bird’s eye’ analyses with lots of caveats included. I can think of quite a few specific user scenarios where I would say ‘it sounds like the SL is absolutely the right camera for you!’

I think your comments will be very useful to anyone reading this thread and thank you for taking the time to add them!

I think the value of comments, criticisms and suggestions depends on who makes them and whether they could do better than the manufacturers. For example, we all criticise every government but how many could actually do better? (probably we all could!)

Most people will offer opinions on things about which they actually know nothing, hence the popularity of radio phone-ins, so it is always a pleasure to hear a real expert. But even they can be wrong, so one must just listen to many and pick the most sensible.

Well informed opinions and recommendations are clearly completely different to uninformed ones. It’s the uninformed ones that I think are pointless. I am sure that Leitz and all the manufacturers can tell the difference!

It is interesting that you say ‘users are a valuable resource, but are not always the best source of that information.’

That is indeed true. I have met a number of professional photographers and film-makers who, incredibly, don’t even know what a gray card is, and how it came to into being, so you can’t always trust even so-called professionals!

There does seem to be rather an air of mystique about Leica cameras probably dating from years ago when they were pretty well the exclusive property of professionals and rich amateurs in a clique of ‘experts’. This sort of thing can be found in many groups.

Only last week, a non-Leica amateur photographer saw my SL and asked me about it, saying that it certainly looked a professional piece of equipment. He had never used any Leica but was interested in buying one partly because he was intrigued by their history.

After explaining about easy it was to use the SL, I told him to visit the London Leica store and try all the Leicas, saying that, although Leica stores are definitely upmarket, he would be made most welcome as I have always found that the staff are very friendly and helpful, unlike some other camera shops.

I do not contribute to forum discussions unless it is to a subject I actually understand and about which I can offer experience or facts.

Your forum is useful but I do feel that the title ‘Is the Leica SL Doomed’ is unnecessarily pessimistic and might discourage some from even trying this wonderful camera.

However, your forum is excellent in that there are actual SL users relating their experiences – all good, as far as I can see.

With regard to other manufacturers, I feel that many video camera operators use non-Leica cameras for video because their colleagues use them or because they are cheaper or more suitable for what they do. There is nothing wrong with that and they produce some excellent work but the Leica SL suits me and I don’t mind paying for quality.

Posts by actual SL users sing its praises.

As I said before, I tried all the competition before even touching an SL but, when it comes to handling and quality, there is simply no competition.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Name *

Email *

Website

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The Author

Award-winning photographer, ex-soldier and father of two, Thomas Stanworth has spent over a decade working and photographing in trouble spots from Sierra Leone to Afghanistan. His work has been exhibited in the US, UK, Europe and Asia. Read More…

TPF Newsletter

Email address:

Leave this field empty if you're human:

Limited Edition prints by Thomas Stanworth

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites